Wednesday, July 27, 2011

In 2011, whites lean Republican across the board

Don't look now, but the Sailer strategy is implementing itself, even if the focus of GOP head honchos like Ed Gillespie remains elsewhere. Pew Research just released a report comparing political leanings by demographic group in 2008 and 2011. The following table, comprised of data from that report, shows the Democratic or Republican advantage in partisan support in 2008 and 2011 followed by the change over that period of time, with blue indicating a change beneficial to Democrats and red indicating a change beneficial to Republicans. All white and black figures are for non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks only:

Group

'08 advantage

'11 advantage

Change '08-'11

Whites

2

13

11

Blacks

82

78

4

Hispanics

38

42

4

Jews

52

29

23

Whites only

x

x

x

Men

11

21

10

Women

7

5

12

18-29 (age)

7

11

18

30-49

7

19

12

50-64

0

9

9

65+

2

12

10

College grad

1

7

8

Some college

5

16

11

High school or less

1

17

16

$75k+ (annually)

11

14

3

$30k-$75k

1

16

15

Less than $30k

15

4

19

Northeast

12

1

11

Midwest

3

14

17

South

15

22

7

West

2

9

11

Despite putative frustration with the Obama administration's 'lack of action' on "comprehensive immigration reform" and the national Republican party's leadership continued obsession with "reaching out" to Hispanics, Hispanic support for Democrats has actually solidified a bit in the last three years. And despite Cornell West's inability to see why blacks would support the president, the vast majority still do (not at all surprisingly). As a gentile, I never feel as though I have much of a grasp on Jewish psychology, but the easy explanation for a substantial slackening in Jewish support for Democrats is the Obama administration's continued strained relationship with Israel.

The big story concerns whites, especially younger and less affluent ones, who have shifted significantly towards the GOP during Obama's presidency. The hipness of hope and change that memorized a few years ago has given way to the realities many white 20-somethings face, having moved back into their childhood bedrooms with little prospect of being able to get out from under a boatload of college loans anytime soon, having to compete with an expanding pool of low-skilled labor for even entry-level work.

The Sailer strategy is going to be a focal point of an upcoming NPI conference in Washington DC, but pithily, it directs the Republican party to structure itself and strive towards policies that benefit its white base rather than be leftist-lite by pandering to groups naturally antagonistic towards it and paying homage to the supposedly legion (but never articulated) benefits of diversity.

Notice how whites of both sexes and all ages and educational and income levels currently back the GOP. Even in the Northeast, the one region of the country where the majority of whites have consistently voted Democrat for decades, white support is now split.

By bringing attention back home and away from nation-building efforts in the sandpits and teetering peaks of the third-world, the "debt crisis" and the rapid growth in deficit spending have thrust Republican legislators into Sailer strategy leadership roles, even if the tactics they are employing are not explicitly acknowledged (and I'm not sure Steve recommends Republican leaders doing so even if the GOP were to embrace his strategy).

Federal government spending in the US results from resources largely being taken from whites and disproportionately given to non-whites. When times are tough economically and non-beneficiaries of government largess perceive themselves to be suffering, the insistence on protecting those benefiting from that largess (whether it be through direct welfare payments or through employment in cushy government jobs that are disproportionately held by blacks) has the consequence of pitting whites against non-whites. Further, whites have relatively greater affinity than NAMs do for programs the Obama administration has shown the greatest willingness to give a haircut to, like NASA and Social Security.

18 comments:

It appears to me that the Republican party is gaining strength even while it projects a Lefty-lite, diversity-embracing image. The question is, has the strengthening occurred because or in spite of that image? Or has it occurred simply because so many people view Obama is an intolerable radical? At any rate, as long as the Republican party remains viable electorally, I hardly expect it to adopt the Sailer strategy, although I fervently wish it would.

PS--Any idea which way Americans of East Asian and Indian descent are leaning politically, AE?

The problem with Jews bailing from the Democratic party is not their 2% of the vote. It is the fact that roughly 1/3 of campaign contributions come from the Tribe. This money won't be made up from the new Hispanics who have joined.

The Republican party at local levels tends to be more unabashedly culturally conservative (which is not the same as KKK and hate) than at the federal level, but anybody who looks at the party of Boehner, McCain, Romney, etc. and screams "racism" is either a nut or an imbecile.

> as long as the Republican party remains viable electorally, I hardly expect it to adopt the Sailer strategy, although I fervently wish it would.

Not all human behavior is ruthlessly self-seeking, but our electoral politics is. (It would be less so if we were all one ethny.) Pols will become relatively more pro-White as soon as their constituents demand it of them. This is especially true of the House and Senate. Presidential campaigns have the propaganda power to move voters a bit in their direction on issues (as opposed to them moving to the voters), but a Senate campaign's less powerful propaganda on national issues is lost in a sea of other propaganda power.

The question is not whether pols will obey voters, but whether voters will in some measure - in an increasing measure - cease to obey anti-White propaganda from mass media, public schools, universities, and government. I do think their disobedience will in fact increase somewhat over the course of the near and mid future.

Why Obama tangled with Israel like that is totally baffling. Does he actually care about Palestinians per se, or something? I doubt it. What did he think was going to happen? Even if we leave money aside, there are a lot of Jews in the national media, and that's power, big power.

> Leftward as of 2010. According to the GSS, there hasn't been much change over the last decade.

I think the economy's going to suffer a lot more - and lastingly - and both S and E Asians will get fed up and move strongly right.

They have low fertility, which means they (1) are relatively demographically old, or soon will be, and (2) won't get much income from their adult children when they retire. So they are going to be interested in Medicaid and to some extent SS, and even more interested in not continuing to make such massive transfers to NAMs out of their paycheck.

Becoming an aggrieved anti-White group themselves is not a realistic option. They're too successful, really, to play victim, and worse yet they are far too dignified and noble. Moreover this is just not an era of expansion for the anti-White industry; quite the opposite. So they will just have to go GOP.

Unlike NAM's, Asians are naturally compliant and like to go along. The media is liberal and so would predict that Asians will comply with the loudest and most prevalent and prestigious MSM opinions. However, most Asian immigrants are also pretty high in their reasoning ability and will be able to figure out that the MSM message ain't working for them. They are more likely to pay higher taxes to support NAM's and more likely to be victimized by NAM's.

The open question about Asians is whether their natural compliance or their analytical skills will prove more influential to their voting choices.

Ed: As an Asian, maybe I can comment. Asians come in without much attachment to political ideologies (Asian politics is very different; even in democracies the faultlines are not left-right). And since they move into cities, which are Democratic, they naturally initially affiliate with Democrats.

But Asians are also more educated and affluent and are actively harmed by the same sorts of policies that harm whites, from AA to crime. As each generation of immigrants assimilates, they tend to lean rightward as they get richer and get a better sense of the political picture. This is borne out by the fact that, as AE says, there hasn't been much change in political alignment among "Asians" in the past decade: existing Asians are becoming Republican as fast as new immigrants are coming into Democratic cities. In a generation, *current* Asian-Americans will lean right to a very large degree.

Should add that even some some first-generation immigrants - like my parents - sense a strong affiliation with Republicans because of the similarity between social conservatism and Asian values of hard work and family values.

Two explanations for Obama's abandonment of Israel and ingratiation with the Palestinians spring to mind.

First, at heart, Obama is a typical academic Leftist, and it is an item of faith in that group that the Palestinians are victims of something resembling--improbably enough--the Shoah. Obama's support for the Pals, therefore, may be reflexive and ingrained.

Second, the support for the Palestinians is an action that will galvanize his Leftist base. Just as there is "boob bait for Bubba," so their is "manna for Moonbeam."

Could you kindly find the IQ distribution by specific political party. Not too general in a sense of republican vs democrat or conservative vs liberal, but more specific such as Reagan Democrats or Rockefeller Republican? Thanks.

The Roper Center has exit polling data going back several decades, but doesn't drill down any deeper than "Asian" (not Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, etc). The GSS per year Asian total for the question on political orientation averages around 60 respondents, so breaking it down by national origin leaves us with insufficiently small sample sizes, unfortunately.